Setting the Tone of the Review

Please keep your comments constructive. If the problems you identify cannot be fixed,
try to provide the authors with constructive ideas for how they might improve upon
their submission as they develop their research. It is also important to try and identify
the strengths of a manuscript to help the author(s) improve their work.

One of the greatest services that Division reviewers perform is the development of
the research of members who submit their work. Identify areas of weakness in a
manuscript, but also provide specific guidance on how the authors might address the
limitations you have noted. The more specificity you provide in your review, the more
likely it is that the authors will benefit from your efforts.

Authors deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of your evaluation of their work.
Remember, you are representing the particular Division with your review and
ultimately the Academy.

Please try to be open-minded to different authors using different theoretical
frameworks. Try to judge manuscripts based on how well they stimulate thinking and
discussion. Also, keep in mind that many Academy members come from disciplinary
backgrounds and research traditions with diverse theoretical and methodological
orientations.
Review Format

You must submit your review within the timelines provided. There is no slack in our
schedule. Please see the annual meeting website http://meetings.aomonline.org/ for
more information.

Provide a structured review by separating and numbering comments. Also, where
appropriate, cite specific page numbers, passages, tables, and figures in your review.

If you are uncertain about your comments in terms of some aspects of your review,
please do your best to determine the accuracy of your position. Remember that
inaccuracies in your review reflect on the division you are reviewing for as a whole as
well as on the Academy.

Do not provide information in your review that reveals your identity and do not seek to
discover the identity of the authors. This protects the integrity of the 'double-blind"
review process.

A good review is typically 1 single-spaced page in length. This year through the
Central Reviewer System we hope to increase the number of reviewers for each
Division/Interest Group, in order to decrease the number of submissions each
reviewer had to evaluate. When you signed up to review for a Division you have
committed to review up to 5 papers. With this said it is our overall goal to have you
review fewer submissions, and to provide for the division higher quality reviews.
General Areas to Cover

In addition to commenting on the theoretical development of a submission and the
technical correctness of the methodology, you should also consider the overall
valueadded contribution the submission offers. Does the submission pass the so
what test? Also, consider whether the submission has any practical value, and
comment on its implications for the practice community.
Specific Areas to Consider
The following points are some suggested criteria that might help you structure your
evaluations of the submissions sent to you.


Introduction
o
Is there a clear research question, with a solid motivation behind it?
o
Is the research question interesting?
o
After reading the introduction, did you find yourself motivated to read further?
Theory
o
Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical
framework?
o
Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined?
o
Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?
o
Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical
references missing?
o

Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?
Method (for empirical papers)
o
Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses?
o
Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical technique(s)
applied?
o
Does the study have internal and external validity?
o
Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research
questions and were they applied appropriately.

Results (for empirical papers)
o
Are the results reported in an understandable way?
o
Are there alternative explanations for the results, and if so, are these
adequately controlled for in the analyses?

Contribution
o
Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research?
o
Does the submission stimulate thought or debate?
o
Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and
practice community?